For a public person, not only should there be no conflict of interest, but it should also appear to be nonexistent

What if your father is a public figure, a people’s leader or even a minister, and you legitimately win a government scholarship? Does that constitute abuse of privilege? If the son or daughter of a public figure has won the scholarship through fair competition, should they be denied? This was the question applicable to a minister’s daughter in Maharashtra recently.

She won a scholarship to pursue a PhD in astrophysics at a prestigious university abroad. She is a well-qualified IITian and already holds a Master’s degree from the UK. The scholarship in question is awarded to students from Scheduled Castes or neo-Buddhist communities — the Maharashtra government offers such assistance as part of its social justice agenda. The girl’s father did not interfere with the selection process, and it appears that she won it fair and square. Except that, in this case, the father is the minister for social justice. It appears to be a conflict of interest, and appearances do matter.

For a public person, not only should there be no conflict of interest, but it should also appear to be nonexistent. This may seem unfair to the daughter. But as soon as the matter was raised in the press, she showed great maturity and decided to forego the scholarship, thereby saving her father the blushes. And by all appearances, the family seems financially capable of meeting her costs.

Now rewind to more than a hundred years ago. Another public person, the very epitome of probity. His son was also brilliant, and was the prime candidate for a generous scholarship to study abroad. The funding would come through a prominent businessman’s local endowment. There was no taxpayer money involved (unlike in the case of the Maharashtra minister and his daughter).

And yet, the great man, the father, a respected leader of the community, a symbol of morality in public life, denied his son. He said the scholarship should go to someone else, not to his son. That son was Harilal, the father was Mohandas Gandhi, and this was South Africa.

Gandhi home-schooled his sons, even though they could easily have studied in European schools. He tried to infuse in them a spirit of sacrifice from a very early age. Kasturba once said to Mohandas, “You want to make saints out of my boys, even before they are men.” Of course, Harilal became bitter and led a tragic, rebellious life. His relationship with his famous father is the subject of a very famous play, Gandhi versus Gandhi, which was recently made into a film. Unlike Harilal, his other siblings received much better treatment from their father. Gandhi famously said there were two people in his life whom he regretted never being able to convince:

Mohammed Ali Jinnah and Harilal. Of course, Harilal’s case is the polar extreme and almost pathological. But it does show to what extent and how far “doing the right thing” can go for a person in public life. If a person acquires that kind of reputation — that despite being a neta, he or she is not doing anything for personal or vested interest — then the public puts its faith and trust in such a leader. Such a leader can do no wrong. He or she has the public good at heart. But this can also be dangerous in a democracy, because it gives rise to a messiah complex.

It is much better that we treat our public representatives like professional managers who are given charge of managing the economy and public affairs. And just like listed companies in a stock exchange, we require of them fair disclosure of all potential and real conflicts of interest, sources of income, assets and liabilities, criminal records, and educational background. Like listed companies, we could also extend some of this disclosure to their family members — if their assets have grown disproportionately, they, too, must be asked to explain. The public who elects them has a right to know.

Finally, it is worth remembering that even when a private company gives out freebies, prizes or lotteries, the company’s employees and their family members are prohibited from benefiting from the company’s largesse. If this is followed by the private sector, surely it is much more applicable when it comes to public money and ministers.

Therefore, we must thank the daughter who gave up her scholarship — not for her sacrifice, but because she did the right thing

Recent Messages ()

Please rate before posting your Review

OR PROCEED WITHOUT REGISTRATION

Share on Twitter

SIGN IN WITH

Refrain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks, name calling or inciting hatred against any community. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines by marking them offensive. Let's work together to keep the conversation civil.